×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

68 comments

what the blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015545)

there ain't any Laptop Building HOWTO, and AFAIK building one isn't trivial.

I build my own systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015546)

It's why I'm not asking for a refund today.

If I were in the market for a Laptop, it would be a PowerBook G3. They take Linux really nicely and I think MacOS is kind of neat so I'd probably want to keep it around to play with.

what the blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015547)

Thats fine for desktops, but less easily done for
laptops, plus, depending on the system, the price
(based on parts, plus labor, plus shopping) often
justifies buying an 'off the shelf' model instead
of building it yourself.

Microsoft owes you nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015548)

Yea that's a good analogy... like apples and oranges!

Microsoft owes you nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015549)

...unless you bought Windows in a shrink-wrapped box off the shelf and never unwrapped it.

If you bought a PC with Windows, the system vendor is who sold you Windows, not Microsoft, and you should be talking to them.

If you went to Burger King, asked for a Whopper with no ketchup, and got a Whopper with ketchup, do you call the Heinz ketchup company to ask for a refund on the ketchup? No, you ask Burger King for a refund (or a new burger), because they're the ones that gave you the ketchup.

Think about it, people.

no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015550)

A poll in favor of MS on *MS*NBC?

If they don't keep their end of the bargain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015551)

Set fire to the envelope, and hope the plastic CD container does not melt/burn - this should allow you to extract the CD. I am sure that no court would consider that setting fire to the EULA was agreeing to it !

Windows Lawsuit Day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015552)

How about Monday in two weeks is "Windows Lawsuit Day"? That's the day where everyone sues their appropriate vendor for not keeping their end of the EULA.

The Real Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015553)

...is the greed of the OEMs who enter into Microsoft's exclusionary contracts willingly so that that they can pay as little for the OS as possible. I agree with other /.ers who feel that Microsoft isn't the one to directly blame in this case.

Now, whether these OEMs ever actually read the EULA is another story. A class-action lawsuit against each offending OEM is probably the only way to tackle this, legally.

-Cygnus
The God of Balance

Ummm newsflash... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015554)

We already know that. Most of us know that MSFT "isnt to blame" anywhere.

When the peasants storm the castle, they don't really care whether the Lord of the Manor is to blame or not. Heads are gonna roll.

I don't like the MS EULA, I think it is borderline illegal. Detroit used to pull this same kind of bs. It took a few acts of Congress and the Japanese to straighten them out. And they fought it tooth and nail ("Buy American"). Their conduct was so reprehensible, I will not buy detroit wheels (just bought a 99 honda thank you very much).

When MS is willing to risk public opinion in pursuit of profits, expect to see a few laws passed. Its good politics....;)

Re: Pay first, or let ad appear? Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015555)

Not quite sure I agree with this. If you record a TV show, are you obligated to sit through the commercials instead of fast forwarding? More relevant to the topic, are you saying it is immoral to turn off images in your browser?

/. that F**ker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015556)

So far 13,000 people have voted. /. could at least double that number, and push the votes in favor of the government.

No cheating, though. There's absolutely no reason to.

Looking like the bad guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015557)

As opposed to looking like what?

Those who have a clue already hate Microsoft. Those who don't have a clue don't want a clue. We're dealing with denial, not innocent ignorance.

MSNBC Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015558)

So go /. the poll everybody...

Re: Pay first, or let ad appear? Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015559)

look you liberal wuss, these advertisements have to be obnoxious because that's the way advertising works. people go to school for marketing to learn how to grab people's attention and take notice in a product. if every ad were one sentence in terminal font, no one would sell anything because it wouldn't look exciting.

I smell lawsuit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015560)

Really?
No, not really.

A nice class action lawsuit for not keeping up their end of their EULA would be great. Didn't MS already change the EULA since this started? Why was it changed if there was nothing wrong?

EULA Holds Water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015561)

Hmmm... if MSFT isn't going to honor that part of the EULA... does it mean that the rest of it is complete bullshit too?

Think about that.

Phenym

what the blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015562)

No offense to the X community, but if you guys are all into customizing and your own boxes n stuff, why not build your own systems too?!?!
Hypocritical??

On the other hand, I definitely think MS should give everyone refunds.

Microsoft owes you nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015563)

But the OEM's claim, correctly AFAIK, that *they* did not agree to the refund clause of the EULA and are not so bound. MS is attempting to impose legal obligations on third parties. If Ford had a clause in their ownership contracts that stated the dealer and not them was liable for defects in the car, and the dealer had not agreed to this, who would you hold accountable? The EULA is not legal.

fashion replaces microshit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015564)

why is this link now pointing to a fashion article? it worked earlier.

Wouldn't it be better if they don't get money back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015565)


Methinks we win either way:

No-refund --> bad PR for the MS/OEM complex.

Refund --> precedent --> continual cash bleed from OEMs as alternative OSs continue to spread --> unwillingness of the OEMs to play tax collector, when it becomes a risk to their incomes --> no MS tax.

MSNBC Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015566)

Know what bugs me? MSNBC has a poll that says like 68% of the public thinks Microsoft is a good, kind company and the DOJ is hurting innovation. I smell another shady poll... Gates: "I'd really like a poll that said the public really likes us"

See http://www.msnbc.com/news/207645.asp [msnbc.com]

Wouldn't it be better if they don't get money back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015567)

If these people don't get any money back, then
MS comes off looking like the bad guy. Next step is to throw Windows CDs into the Boston Harbor.

...but if most people do get their money back, it may look like a ridiculous PR stunt on part of the Linux users.

Dealers may say you paid nothing for it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015568)

Microsoft is right about the refund being owed by the PC dealer and not them. What stops the dealer from saying, that they sold you a computer with a free copy of Microsoft Windows thrown in as a promotion? Therefore, the refund owed to you, if you do not accept the EULA, is $0.00
The dealer's claim would be supported by the fact that, if you got them to sell you a computer with no operating system, the price would have been the same.

Re: Pay first, or let ad appear? Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015569)

It costs money to run a web site. They have to pay for servers, bandwidth, people to write the content, etc., so they have to have some way of making that money back. So they put up advertisements.

If you don't like the advertising, don't go to the web site. But if you use the web site, don't complain about the ads. Do you think Slashdot would be able to have the high speed connection it has today without advertising?

The enemy of OUR ENEMY... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015570)

...is not necessarily our friend, but is welcome nonetheless. I think.

Still, lawyers make me nervous. You never know when they'll turn on you.

Got a call from my lawyer this morning! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015571)

My lawyer called this morning. She has been setting up a Y2K unit inside her law firm, getting ready to offer both plaintiff and defendant services. But business is slow for the moment.

So her boss sees some press coverage about the refund day, and talk about a class action lawsuit. He sicks her on it. She calls me, the linux guy. I pointed her at /. and some of the refund web sites.

It seems that there are a group of large law firms who think they can get rich by suing a handful of large computer manufacturers, so I dropped Toshiba's name as one of the worst offenders, as well as GW2K, Dell, Compaq and some others.

Got a call a few minutes ago. She has been ordered to wander down to one of the protest rallies, and report back on how many people seem to be getting refunds (either in realtime or over the next few weeks). And to get names of people who might like to sign on to the lawsuit. The best people are the ones who have carefully documented the purchase process and the refund process in great detail. Thats a *HINT*, people.

I'm a happy boy. Ain't it good when things are going our way, hey hey!

Microsoft might not have a choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015572)

> ...they can't risk a scandal.

You're forgetting: MS's PR skills are inversely proportional to their marketing clout.

Also, when it comes to losing money the reflexive answer is going to be "no", even if it results in disaster. Think of it as a monkey trap.

Dealers may say you paid nothing for it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015573)

But you *do* pay for it. Even if they say they're giving it to you for free, the cost of the OS would have to impact either the cost of their product or their bottom-line.

If they don't keep their end of the bargain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015574)

If it came pre-installed then there is no envelope involved. Just boot from a Linux CD and use fips to re-partition your hard drive. Once Linux is installed, you can access the Windows partition without ever reading or agreeing to the EULA.

The Real Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015575)

Yes, the greed of the OEMs! I used to work for a major software distributor. We sold the Microsoft-produced OEM Windows 95 packages, which were a five pack. Each OS ends up costing less than the retail equivalent, of course. Any OEM is free to purchase these through the distribution channels. The greed of the OEMs is seen when they circumvent this and other options and willingly enter into a contract with Microsoft which specificies exclusivity just so they can pay as little as possible for the OS in the end.

I realize that it is not reasonable to expect the Dells and Compaqs to purchase the OEM packages from someone other than Microsoft (based on volume). But it is also not reasonable to expect them to disregard the terms of the EULA as they see fit. There is a middle ground, but in their greed they went for the cheapest available solution.

-Cygnus

Pay first, or let ad appear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015576)

First pay a subscription to the site, as the advertising is paying for the service which the site is providing you. If you don't want to pay, leave the ads alone. You have been paying your local public TV station so they could survive without ads, haven't you? Oh, you haven't, and now you're whining about how much longer the corporate sponsorship messages have gotten?

No Subject Given (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015577)

The word is, they do not sell systems at this time without an OS. That OS is either Windows 98 or NT. If they do not choose to agree to the terms of the licensing for the OS on the machine, you have to return the entire system for a refund.

Hmm, do I hear "buy a machine and then return it for a full refund day" upcoming? With the packaging all torn apart, the OEM's won't be able to resell them as new.

which band? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015578)

"The main event will be held at Microsoft's Silicon Valley offices in Foster City, Calif., where a small parade is scheduled and a local rock band will play..."

Which band is going to play?

Seems that it's been /.'ed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015579)


Already down to 66%.

Also, I didn't see a voting button. Have they already turned it off in a panic, or is it just rejecting me since I'm one of those no-cookie paranoid types?

I smell lawsuit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015580)

You know, since the class action suit against AOL was successful, I don't see any reason why a class action suit against m$ wouldn't work. I mean, if i want to buy a laptop, it's not like that's the sort of thing i can get in pieces and put together myself, but I'm not going to be running windows on something that really is only useful for work. (it's another animal on a desktop, because I _have_ to be able to play Carmageddon...) The m$ tax really would make a great class action lawsuit for everyone running linux. I mean, how many linux users out there had to pay the m$ tax? That could be quite a dent in m$'s bank, and it could get pc manufacturers to start selling pre-loaded alternate os'es.

mwegner@cs.oberlin.edu

I smell lawsuit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015581)

Dream on .. you always try'in to bring the big one down.. MS will never die.. Try teaching Linux
to your mother or your uncle .. and try not to loose them..

It wouldn't suprise me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015582)

The EULA specifically states the procedure for getting your money back if you disagree with it, and the refund day people are trying to bypass that procedure and go straight to Microsoft. Microsoft has no obligation to give anything to people who aren't following the procedure laid out it their license.

Internet Junkbuster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2015583)

...will do the trick. It will also get rid of the
adverts on Slashdot ;-)

what the blah (1)

Octal (310) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015584)

Many of the people seeking refunds bought laptops, which you can't really build yourself.

I agree. (1)

Codifex Maximus (639) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015585)

The dent in Microsoft's prestige will be bigger than thier pocketbook. When the industry finds out that Microsoft backed warranties are worthless, Microsoft's word will count for squat.

Refunding users who didn't want Windows would do two things. It would set the dangerous precedent that Microsoft actually cares for the customer and it would give them credability in court.

My guess is that Microsoft wont give the refunds - too bad for them.

CompUSA Directs policy (1)

tak* (1121) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015586)

It means, since CompPCs only come with MS OSs, if you return the OEM CD and Cert. of Authenticity, you can get $79. But, only today.

CompUSA Directs policy (1)

tak* (1121) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015587)

I work at ComPUSA Direct and this is an email we got on this today:

If we get any calls about customers wanting to return their Microsoft based PC Operating System Software and the Software has not been registered please follow this criteria:

1. If it is a CompPC we can only accept the product back for refund as we only offer Microsoft Operating system products. The refund amount would be $79 and would be credited to the customer upon receipt and inspection of the return.

2. If it is a non CompPC we should refer the customer to that vendor.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: deleted
Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 6:46 PM
To: deleted
Subject: Questions on Microsoft Windows Refunds


A number of Linux Operating System users groups have declared Monday, February 15th, Windows Refund Day. Although we do not expect to receive calls on this issue there is always the possibility.

1. If a customer calls requesting a refund for a Microsoft operating system that is installed on a system purchased from us and the operating system has been registered with Microsoft there is no refund ability. To change operating systems this customer would need to purchase new operating system software.

2. If a customer has received a system from us, has not loaded and registered the operating system and is looking for a refund for the cost of the operating system please refer this customer to Customer Service.

Microsoft might not have a choice (1)

jd (1658) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015588)

Oh, but I -do- undderstand, and yes, it IS the vendors that are covered by the EULA. HOWEVER, Microsoft cannot AFFORD to argue that point - not now, with the court case ripping them apart this past week.

THAT is why Microsoft might have to cough up, even though the EULA technically says the vendor does. They CANNOT AFFORD to be seen to be passing the buck. Not right now. If this had been any other week, I'd have said "Yeah, they'll tell people to go to their vendor and complain". With the licence stuff and faked^H^H^H^Hsimulated and edited video very much on the media's collective mind, they can't risk a scandal.

Microsoft might not have a choice (1)

jd (1658) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015589)

It doesn't matter what the strict wording is, on the EULA, really. Microsoft has had a nightmare of a week in court and CANNOT afford to hand the DOJ further ammunition.

A fictional coutroom scene:

"So, you recognise Be and Linux as competition?"
"Yes."
"And you do not leverage your position, illegally, to prevent comptetition?"
"No."
"You are bound by your licences?"
"Yes."
"These people, wanting to use Be and Linux, were refused a refund, as per your licence, were they not?"
"Yes."
"So you did not honor your licence?"
"No, we did not."
"And so Microsoft effectively raises the price of buying a computer for use with Be or Linux, has it not?"
"Yes."
"Isn't that illegally leveraging the market?"
"Yes."
"Didn't you just say you didn't do that? Did you not also say you honored your licences?"
"We are Microsoft of Borg. Truth is irrelevent. You will be assimilated."

OEMs can build faster motherboards (1)

jd (1658) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015590)

Not all motherboards are the same. A board from Dell is very different than one from Viglen or Compaq. (Thank goodness!)

So, if you want high-spec components (which is absolutely necessary for a high-speed computer), taking out the soldering iron is really not as practical.

(If it were, d'you think I'd still be using ISA or PCI??? I'd have gone VME the second I had access to the Linux sources!)

Dealers may say you paid nothing for it. (1)

Jeff Licquia (2167) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015591)

That would be great, except that's not what the OEMs are doing.

When you buy a system, you get something that says, "You need to agree to this contract in order to use the software contained within. If you don't agree, return the software for a refund."

If the OEM says you can get a refund, then you can get a refund. Period. If the OEM wants to say that the software inside is free, then they should have the EULA changed to reflect that the software is free and they are not entitled to a refund if they don't use it.

I don't know, however, what impact that would have on other legal issues. I would expect that calling the OS a zero-cost bundle could get MS and the vendors into a heap of legal trouble, especially since the vendors aren't buying, say, BeOS and bundling it for free, or just shipping Linux for the same that they paid for it (nothing).

But with the wording of the EULA as it is, there's no mistaking it. The OS is part of the cost of the system, and you can get a refund for the OS if you choose not to use it.

Interestingly, if you don't have a choice - say, the vendors refuse to refund the money and MS does as well - then it's possible that the license is coerced, since you are forced to pay for a product and agree to a license. In that case, the license is null and void.

Blasted advertsiment popup... (1)

Zapman (2662) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015592)

Anyone know of a clean way to >/dev/null any of those freaking popup advertisments?

Or should I just ask slashdot this? :-)

Still going to be a slam-dunk... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015593)

Because to cover their asses when the heat comes from a class-action suit filed (believe me there will be and they'll be named a defendant, right along with anyone else brave enough (more like stupid enough) to hold the same position or the $0 cost position) they'll say that their position was mainly due to there being no agreement with MS to do this so that they can extend the refund to the users (Claims of "quality control" do not work in this case- they can assure quality WITHOUT the Windows OS.). If the DOJ trial's still going on or they file another- this will muck up their chances for that case severely.

Dell's *OFFICIAL* position on the refunds... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015594)

I just got off the phone with a customer service rep (I won't name names- wouldn't want to get them in trouble). Nice congenial conversation with the rep- Dell had circulated an E-mail about today this morning that hadn't been read yet by the rep.

The word is, they do not sell systems at this time without an OS. That OS is either Windows 98 or NT. If they do not choose to agree to the terms of the licensing for the OS on the machine, you have to return the entire system for a refund.

I hope the DOJ pays attention to this- this is a clear-cut example of tying of the OS to what is a generic computer platform.

I agree. (1)

Oloryn (3236) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015595)

When the industry finds out that Microsoft backed warranties are worthless, Microsoft's word will count for squat.
You mean Microsoft's word counted for something before? There are a number of former partners who may want to disagree with you on that.

Why should this bo so difficult (1)

krbonne (4200) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015596)

I don't get it...
In Belgium (and most European countries) it is even illegal to even GIVE THE IMPRESSION you need to buy one product if you want purchase something else)!
(Last week, there was a complained of people who didn't like somebody else GAVE AWAY a news-paper in a backery-shop, as you could get the idea that you needed by a breat if you wanted the newspaper for free).

This is something {some smart lawer, some consumer protection organisation, mr. Van Miert -European Commisioner for fair-trade-) I guess whould just die for to get their hands on!

Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

I smell lawsuit! ...but not against MS (1)

el_nino (4271) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015597)

The reasoning could be that the EULA binds you if you use the software, the sale has nothing to do with it...

Microsoft owes you nothing... (1)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015598)

i see you read the newsletter.

twerp.

they called the manufacturer - no joy. each manufacturer. microsoft and the vendors laid out a policy in the eula, and now aren't implementing it. the eula was created with each vendor: microsoft and toshiba, microsoft and dell, microsoft and compaq, microsoft and gateway... sensing a trend here?

the people requesting a refund are speaking to the one company in common, the one company that has their money, and the one company who's product they aren't using.

seems pretty simple, eh?

It wouldn't suprise me (1)

DarrenR114 (6724) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015599)

Except one issue that you seem to have forgotten: Prior attempts to get refunds from the vendors have failed. The top 6 OEM's have already been on record as NOT giving refunds for MS-Windows because of their own policies. If both the OEMs and MS refuse to give refunds, then we have grounds for a class-action suit. But in order to be successful in court, we have to give both the OEMs and MS a chance to make good on their EULA. We have heard from the OEMs. Now we need to hear from MS. Then we can pull the OEMs and MS into court. Let them (MS and OEMs) do their finger pointing their and let a judge make their choice on who pays for the refund.

I smell lawsuit! ...but not against MS (1)

deeny (10239) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015600)

How could something authored by Microsoft and called "End User License Agreement" (aimed at the end user; note that "agreement" is a synonym for "contract" in many cases) NOT be a contract between Microsoft and the end user?

It only has anything to do with the OEM if they've agreed to those terms. I don't have any evidence that they have.

_Deirdre

I smell lawsuit! ...but not against MS (1)

deeny (10239) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015601)

> It would, indeed, be reasonable to bring a suit
> against Toshiba, Dell, Compaq, Gateway, et al.,
> but the EULA gives no basis for including MS as
> a defendant. Oh, yeah, take this with a grain of > salt since IANAL.

Wrong! The EULA is a contract between Microsoft and the End User. In fact, that's part of the TITLE (End User License Agreement = contract between Microsoft and the End User). A contract cannot bind a third party (such as the OEM) to action without their consent (and valuable consideration to them from Microsoft).

This is what the OEMs have been saying: our contract with MS has no provisions for a refund. I.e., "*we* are not the ones liable for this refund that MS promised."

For this reason, I think taking the issue direct to Microsoft is appropriate.

_Deirdre

Microsoft owes you nothing... (1)

deeny (10239) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015602)

You don't KNOW that the vendors know the provisions of the EULA.

Consider, for a moment, that the OEMs know NOTHING about the EULA. They never agreed to it. Then who is supposed to refund the $?

For example, my EULA came in a shrink-wrapped brick showing only the cert of authenticity #. I would consider it a reasonable defense if they knew nothing about the refund M$ offered the end user since that offer is made directly FROM M$ to the end-user via the EULA.

_Deirdre

Windows Lawsuit Day? (1)

deeny (10239) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015603)

I like the idea except that I think the vendor isn't necessarily the one at fault. Why does everyone, who doesn't USUALLY believe MS propaganda, believe that the OEM is liable? We've seen no evidence.

If I get no satisfaction today (I expect I won't), I will be one of the people spearheading the class action suit.

_Deirdre

Microsoft might not have a choice (1)

BiGGO (15018) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015604)



"You are bound by your licences?"
"Yes."
"These people, wanting to use Be and Linux, were refused a refund, as per your licence, were they not?"
"Yes."
"So you did not honor your licence?"
"No, The refund is from the third party. If these people want a refund they should contact the OEM"


That's what they said always.

If they don't keep their end of the bargain... (1)

yAm (15181) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015605)

Well, you could just as well do what you want with it then, couldn't you? I mean, you don't agree to the terms and then they don't agree with the terms, the contract becomes void, doesn't it? You can then do all the things they say you can't do with it (excluding copyright violations, of course), like reverse engineer it.

yAm

Microsoft might not have a choice (1)

smallworld1 (17763) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015606)

Fine, so if you don't like that dialog how about this one.

Prosecuter:"Mr. Dell(or anybody else representing a major OEM), isn't it true that you installed and distributed MS-Win9X under the agreed to terms in the MS EULA stating that if the end-user does not agree then he must return the software to the vendor, you, for a refund"

Mr Dell:"Yes"

Prosecuter:"Well, I have evidence that there have been many such requests that were denied. How can you explain this?"

Mr Dell:"(Pauses but is forced to answer the question clearly loaded question))Well we also have an agreement with Microsoft that under no circumstances are we able to get a refund from Microsoft in order to provide a refund to the end user."

Prosecutor:"So would it be correct to say that Microsoft clearly has had a significant influence in your decision to violate the terms in the EULA."

Mr. Dell: "Yes"

The Real Issue:Disregard the EULA as they see fitE (1)

smallworld1 (17763) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015607)

Well, if they can disregard the EULA as they see fit, then so can I. So I'll just make 100 CD burns of my Win95 CD that I got with this DELL Latitude that I'm using and distribute them to 100 different people. If some of the EULA is null and void than all of it is.

MSNBC Poll. (1)

smallworld1 (17763) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015610)

If the impeachment scandal has taught me anything, it's that 1. polls are stupid and 2. I must be totally out of touch with reality. I'm a 24 year-old liberal Democrat who thinks Bill Clinton lied under oath, and is a total scumbag who should've been removed from office. Plus I think Micro$oft is a abusive company that has been leveraging it's monopoly power to eliminated the competition

URL changed... (1)

Zinho (17895) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015611)

I got to this headline a bit late; between the time that it was posted and when I read it the URL had changed. The new address:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/mds022.htm [usatoday.com]

I love seeing this story in major news sources. I can't wait to see the rest of the articles and fallout. Knock 'em dead with the lawsuit, eneryone who's in on it!

Poll address (1)

temp (186548) | more than 15 years ago | (#2015612)

The http://www.msnbc.com/news/207645.asp address works too, but you have to do a reload to actually vote. It's an ASP thing. Also, I sent a note asking for the poll to be included as a headline to get it more attention.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...